Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?

[Boss]

6 minutes ago, viRdjil said:

EU immigration being the cause of gentrification in London is amongst the biggest lol posts I’ve seen in here. 

 

What's understood needs no further explanation. Ask the people in London that are being forced out what they think. There's been many programmes, petitions and articles written about it. Russell Brand was drumming up awareness about it 5 years ago. It's already happened now. What's done cannot be undone. The battle was lost.

[aRdja]

19 minutes ago, Boss said:

 

What's understood needs no further explanation. Ask the people in London that are being forced out what they think. There's been many programmes, petitions and articles written about it. Russell Brand was drumming up awareness about it 5 years ago. It's already happened now. What's done cannot be undone. The battle was lost.

Doesn’t explain why property prices in London are more in line with Sydney, San Francisco and New York than big EU cities Madrid, Vienna, Stockholm. With all due respect Boss, I don’t think you understand it very much at all. 

[Boss]

27 minutes ago, viRdjil said:

Doesn’t explain why property prices in London are more in line with Sydney, San Francisco and New York than big EU cities Madrid, Vienna, Stockholm. With all due respect, I don’t think you understand very much at all. 

 

Net immigration to the UK from EU nationals is higher than the rest of the world combined. London has a very high percentage of immigrants. Housing prices in London are in line with New York because New York is the most affluent city in the whole of America. It is not in line with Stockholm or Vienna because EU nationals want to live in London, not Stockholm or Vienna. What part of this do you not understand? 

[Numero Veinticinco]

Oh, cool. You're still arguing about property prices. 

[Pidge]

9 hours ago, A Red said:

I think the point is that the increase in your pension over and above your investment (speculation) will have to be taxed and then perhaps taxed again if your total income is over your personal allowance. 

Why would the increase in value of the investments have to be taxed?

[aRdja]

26 minutes ago, Boss said:

With all due respect I think it's you that doesn't seem to understand.

 

Net immigration to the UK from EU nationals is higher than the rest of the world combined. London has a very high percentage of immigrants. Housing prices in London are in line with New York because New York is the most affluent city in the whole of America. It is not in line with Stockholm or Vienna because EU nationals want to live in London, not Stockholm or Vienna. What part of this do you not understand? 

Migrants move mostly for jobs and opportunities. In the UK, unfortunately because of government policies, jobs and opportunities are hyper-centralised in London. If you had applied a points-based system like Australia instead for example, those jobs would not have disappeared, and they would have been filled with people - could be european, could be northerners, could be asian - and those people would need somewhere to live, which would have created the same demand, and would have pushed the property prices up. You’re seriously misguided if you think the property prices in London are disproportionately high because of their Spanish and Italian residents. Even the government’s estimate showed that property prices would’ve still increased three-folds with 0 immigration (as opposed to 3.2 times) in the last 25 years, and that was them using it as an argument to control immigration. 

[Pidge]

2 hours ago, viRdjil said:

In Australia if you don’t get taxed for selling your main residence. So very little to do with the owner being a ‘shrewd investor’ and no judgment call on improvement work done by the owner. I believe it’s the same in the UK from what @Pidge posted earlier. Not sure why this warrants such a long discussion.

I think it's more convenient for people to invent the tax rules they want to argue about.

[Boss]

15 minutes ago, viRdjil said:

Migrants move mostly for jobs and opportunities. In the UK, unfortunately because of government policies, jobs and opportunities are hyper-centralised in London. If you had applied a points-based system like Australia instead for example, those jobs would not have disappeared, and they would have been filled with people - could be european, could be northerners, could be asian - and those people would need somewhere to live, which would have created the same demand, and would have pushed the property prices up. You’re seriously misguided if you think the property prices in London are disproportionately high because of their Spanish and Italian residents. 

 

There's no point saying we could've applied a points based system like Australia because we couldn't. The core principal of EU membership and single market access is free movement of people / labor. 

 

Yes, eventually gentrification of London would've happened anyway, similar to New York. But that doesn't negate the fact that EU national immigration to the UK outnumbers the rest of the world combined and affluent EU nationals moved to London, displacing poor people from their homes and the surrounding area. It hastened the pace with which it happened and was a genuine factor. 

[A Red]

15 minutes ago, Pidge said:

Why would the increase in value of the investments have to be taxed?

Because if you follow AoT's criteria it is unearned income based on speculation by the pension fund.

[Boss]

Isn't all income inherently speculative? If I buy a farm and it's a productive asset I use for business, then aren't I speculating that i'll make money from it? Aren't I speculating that people will buy my eggs, milk and the livestock I kill? 

[aRdja]

The default is all income should be taxed, but there are exemptions e.g., proceeds from your main residence, the first £12k of your salary. What you’re discussing is what those exemptions are/should be.

[aRdja]

.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

9 hours ago, TheHowieLama said:

No -- here it is.

 

 

Very few folks are making anything, much less a killing in their primary house. 

 

 

That shows that house prices have increased every year since 2013. It reinforces my point.

 

What do you think that would look like if you extended it back, along the 20-30 year timelines that are applicable to home ownership? A pound to a pinch of shit says that you will see increases every year apart from the collapse of 2008-09 and the aftershock in 2013.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

3 hours ago, Boss said:

 

1. You don't need to buy a house to live in a house. You can rent

2. What's cuntish about speculating on an asset?

3. You don't default on your mortgage because you're lucky enough to not be made redundant.

4. Thatcher sold off the council houses. About 50% of the UK population used to live in council houses and they've all been sold.

5. Debt runs the economy.

6. EU open borders is equally responsible for why the housing market in the UK has shot up (but i don't see you bemoaning that), likewise the sub prime mortgage market which tanked in the late 2000's.

7. The government should have no claim because the government hasn't paid a penny towards the asset and doesn't own it. 

1. I mentioned that people have reasons for choosing to buy instead of rent. (In my case, for example, I see it as the best way to ensure I have a roof over my head when I retire.)

2. Speculation falsely inflates demand and drives up prices, meaning that people who want a place to live can't afford it. 

3. Mortgage providers won't lend to you without insurance against loss of earnings. 

4. It's nearly 30 years since Thatcher left office. Successive Governments - of all three major UK parties - are complicit in the stagnation of council house building  (precisely because it forces up prices of homes and they could point to this inflation as an indicator of economic buoyancy).

5. I know. This is a fundamental, structural weakness of neoliberal capitalism. Did you see the news at any point in 2007-2008? That's what "debt runs the economy" means.

6. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of any problems in the housing sector being attributal to EU immigration.  Even Farridge would blush to come out with palpable flapdoodle like that.

7.  The person who did pay for the asset is dead. No living person paid for it. Crucially, though, we're not talking about the amount that the deceased paid for it: we're talking about the profit it would realise today - and the Government contributed more to that than anybody else, living or dead.

[sir roger]

I hope Jezza does something anti-semitic today to get this thread back on track.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

2 hours ago, A Red said:

You might find yourself moaning about the injustice of the tax system, that taxes the "unearned income" in your pension fund, that might mean you have to work an extra 5 years. Significant tax increases are great until you have to pay them.

Any significant tax increase on people in my earning bracket  or my expected pension rate would leave me pretty hard-up. I have never advocated taxes that would leave people struggling.  I have always advocated progressive taxation, where the people who are asked to pay more are those who can afford to do so and still be rich.

 

I like to think that if I ever had that sort of money, I'd be happy with my net income and not begrudge anyone else access to  health, education, roads, etc.

[Mudface]

3 minutes ago, sir roger said:

I hope Jezza does something anti-semitic today to get this thread back on track.

He should tweet that he got the numbers on Countdown more quickly than Riley.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

2 hours ago, Boss said:

 

I'm not quoting Dominic Raab. The UK creates an open border with 350m people. The UK is one of the most desirable places to live within the EU bloc. This has caused gentrification of the entirety of London and the South of England as the most affluent people within the bloc seek to live here. Thus causing the house prices within those areas to rise. I don't need a spreadsheet to deduce that because it's clear as day to see. 

*cough* bollocks *cough*

[Boss]

14 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

1. I mentioned that people have reasons for choosing to buy instead of rent. (In my case, for example, I see it as the best way to ensure I have a roof over my head when I retire.)

2. Speculation falsely inflates demand and drives up prices, meaning that people who want a place to live can't afford it. 

3. Mortgage providers won't lend to you without insurance against loss of earnings. 

4. It's nearly 30 years since Thatcher left office. Successive Governments - of all three major UK parties - are complicit in the stagnation of council house building  (precisely because it forces up prices of homes and they could point to this inflation as an indicator of economic buoyancy).

5. I know. This is a fundamental, structural weakness of neoliberal capitalism. Did you see the news at any point in 2007-2008? That's what "debt runs the economy" means.

6. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of any problems in the housing sector being attributal to EU immigration.  Even Farridge would blush to come out with palpable flapdoodle like that.

7.  The person who did pay for the asset is dead. No living person paid for it. Crucially, though, we're not talking about the amount that the deceased paid for it: we're talking about the profit it would realise today - and the Government contributed more to that than anybody else, living or dead.

 

2. It wasn't speculation that drove the mortgage market up, it was cheap credit and the banks relaxing their policies on borrowing to include people with a poor credit rating. This is a fantastic article about the fall of the sub prime mortgage market in America. https://www.wired.com/2009/02/wp-quant/

 

3. Yes of course. That's to protect them from house prices going down because the money comes out of the deposit, not the mortgage repayments. 

 

7. The person who paid for the asset has entrusted that asset to somebody else. That is their will. They have paid off their debt. They own it outright. Therefore they can entrust it to whomever they please, and the government should butt out. The government have already received their taxes the first time around.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 hour ago, Boss said:

Isn't all income inherently speculative? If I buy a farm and it's a productive asset I use for business, then aren't I speculating that i'll make money from it? Aren't I speculating that people will buy my eggs, milk and the livestock I kill? 

Pure speculation is just gambling that the resale price of an asset will increase, without any effort on the part of the owner of the asset to add value. 

 

Investment  (such as running a farm) carries a risk of loss, but it's not purely speculative. 

[Pureblood]

2 hours ago, Boss said:

 

I'm not quoting Dominic Raab. The UK creates an open border with 350m people. The UK is one of the most desirable places to live within the EU bloc. This has caused gentrification of the entirety of London and the South of England as the most affluent people within the bloc seek to live here. Thus causing the house prices within those areas to rise. I don't need a spreadsheet to deduce that because it's clear as day to see. 

Lol

[Boss]

Just now, TK421 said:

Lol

 

Here come the idiot socialists.

[Pureblood]

It woz da EU wot dun it. NO MORE IMMURGANTS!!!

 

Daily Mail cuntwit.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 minute ago, Boss said:

 

Here come the idiot socialists.

Any chance of any links to statistics and, y'know, facts to back up your wacky claims about EU immigration driving prices up?

[Boss]

5 minutes ago, TK421 said:

It woz da EU wot dun it. NO MORE IMMURGANTS!!!

 

Daily Mail cuntwit.

 

I take your mockery in good spirit usually because I know you get easily wound up and can't take it back.